Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.
( it just keeps going, going, going as they keep killing, killing killing when she tries to separate):
Occupation: Community Act.
PO Box 20335
Below is the act. PHONE or WRITE or EMAIL to protest (if still necessary) this act for two reasons:
1. Similar policies are already encouraging already over entitled men to kidnap and/or molest and/or kill youngsters, their mothers, and themselves, and sometimes bystanders, and sometimes responding police officers, in the process of getting even with their mothers.
2. Nearly every statement in this Act has already been stated in public, in the U.S. Congress, echoed by Presidents Bush, Clinton & Obama, as well as governors across the United States, and has also laws enacted to facilitate the further engagement of fathers in their families post-separation from those families (post-conception, post-divorce, post-restraining order, post-etc.) AND substantial federal grant monies to support this.
3. Nationwide and in prominent positions, the “tripe” — and it IS tripe — that this is a recent phenomenon on which dialogue has not yet taken place, or to which the public has not paid attention — that there is a fatherhood crisis, and along with this, the absence of fathers has been in otherwise creditable institutions been EQUATED AS CAUSE for significant other social problems, which might as easily have been attributable to almost any other reasonable cause, such as illiteracy, racism in incarceration of fathers, and the premise having been that the household values are more pre-eminent than the school or other associations values in growing children. This in effect is a misogynistic policy.
4. The programs and grants to go along with them have undermined due process in the courts. MOreover, the average woman is NOT told of these programs when engaging in the family court system, whereas ample documentation exists, both privately individual cases AND publically on nonprofit websites reporting on this — that noncustodial parents (mostly fathers), through programs that frequently have the word “father” or “fatherhood” in them, and often publically funded — ARE being recruited into programs offering them free legal help, mediation preparation coaching, reduced child support arrears in exchange for increased custodial time, even including fathers in prison, whereas mothers, who often then lose custodial access (sometimes COMPLETELY) to their own children through such programs, are unable to utilize these same programs or funding (including effective legal help) to children who were removed from their households.
5. ANYTHING which undermines due process in the courts is bad public policy and WILL be fought back against, draining significant time energy and money from the hands of the general public, and placing it into the hands of the professionals who profit from all this. Again, ANYTHING which undermines due process in the courts – IN the courtroom is bad public policy and subversion of our U.S. Constitution,and Bill of Rights which exist to prevent exactly such behaviors.
6. Establishing “fatherhood” in this manner absolutely constitutes the establishment of a national religion, and as such is an outright and flagrant violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. No matter how prevalent this is throughout our country presently, it’s still a violation of this Amendment and should as such urgently be reversed.
! ! ! !
By Senator Faust-Goudeau
AN ACT creating and implementing the fatherhood initiative program;
relating to the duties of the department of social and rehabilitation
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
(a) Subject to the provisions of appropriation acts, the sec-
retary of social and rehabilitation services shall establish a fatherhood
initiative program within the department of social and rehabilitation serv-
The objectives of the initiative shall be to:
(1) Promote public education concerning the financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood;
MY pie chart of federal spending indicates that THE largest sector of public expense is HHS, and THE 2nd only is EDUCATION. Therefore I recommend the latter be given a severe “time out” for having promoted and structurally modeled abusive and civil-rights-violating behaviors such that the former has bloated beyond the capacity of the general population to sustain. Moreover, they also should either toss a coin, or duke it out (like the appointed champions of old) in a safe, enclosed place (and out of view of the public is OK, if taxes are suspended for the meantime — in fact, without their interferences, the rest of us, except the thousands in their employ, and the thousands more living off of their grants, and the professions that are enabled by the dysfunction of the educational one in particular, might be a little better off as a whole) — and come out when one has been vanquished.
In particular, they need to decide between them — again, a coin toss would do, because promoting either one I feel is really wrong — that the U.S. Populace AND all its institutions MUST be LBGT friendly (or be accused of hate crimes), OR be misogynistic (or be accused of male-bashing, or scapegoated for any and all social ills) for railing to be father-friendly enough. After all, how are children who live in a home with two Mommies going to bring sperm donor or surrogate father home?
Moreover, how are adopted children to bring their fathers home.
Moreover, how are orphaned children to feel when the world assigns a general hoopla to father’s day, and far less to mothers’?
Moreover, why should a President part of whose platform was indeed that he had been raised by a single mother, be unable to put the word ‘Mother” on the family issues page of the White House?
(2) assist men in preparation for the legal, financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood;
(3) promote the establishment of paternity at childbirth;
(4) encourage fathers, regardless of marital status, to foster their emotional connection to and financial support of their children;
(5) establish support mechanisms for fathers in their relationship with their children, regardless of their marital and financial status;
HOW is this compatible with programs emanating out of the same dept (for which such support mechanisms ALREADY are thriving, and funded) to correlate with the “marriage promotion” funding, CFDA Code 93.086? Let alone Abstinence Education?
(6) integrate state and local services available for families;
(7) promote, foster, encourage and otherwise support programs de- signed to educate and train young men who are both current and future
fathers as to effective parenting skills, behaviors and attitudes.
I.e., every male past puberty who has not had a vasectomy or been injured in his private parts to the extent of being unable to father children (or voluntarily entered the Catholic priesthood) up til what age? Define young? Good grief Get a grip on yourself, Ma’am!!